KRIPAL SPRINGS INDIA LTD Vs. ANDHRA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Counsel for the petitionrs and Mr. C.A. Rao, learned Counsel for opposite parties Nos. 1 and

(2.) IN this writ petition the petitioners challenge the provisions of Sections 13 and 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for short 'the Act 2002'), as well as the notice dated July 2, 2003, issued under Section 13(2) of the said Act, annexure 11 to the writ petition.

(3.) DURING the course of proceeding, Mr. Rath, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the bank is now proceeding under the Securitisation Act, 2002, as well as has filed its claim before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for the very amount, for which the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act has been served on the borrower. The petitioners were given liberty to file an affidavit/amendment petition incorporating the facts relating to filing of O.A. No. 24 of 2004. Mr. Rath further submitted that in the meanwhile, the provisions of the Act, 2002 have undergone a change by way of amendment. The amending provision does not allow parallel proceedings one under the Act, 2002, and other before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to continue at the same time for the same amount.